The Choice of the New Version II of Canon Super-Tele-Lenses EF500mm f/4L vs EF600mm?

[ZoeEnPhos]

Dear Sirs,

Would it be possible to get any nice advice what to think about in the process and consideration of the Choice of the New Version II of the Canon Super-Tele-Lenses EF500mm f/4L vs EF600mm?
I am not only a BIF photographer but also would appreciate to do more broadly wildlife photography with ONE of these new super-tele-lenses.
(I happen to already have the old version I of EF300 f/2.8L IS USM and sometimes using it with the Extension Tubes for close-up-flower photography)

And also I rather handhold them for the flexibility of capturing the best available compositions!

I am not a very strongly built fellow but more average built and I can use my 7D with EF 1.4III-300 f/2.8L IS USM handheld quite well.

I would appreciate your input!

Wishing you all a wonderful week-end and nice new shoots!

Charl

[HDNitehawk]

The 600mm would be the BIF or Bird lens.

If you stick with the 7D I found my 500mm to be long enough. At some point in the future if you move to a FF camera a 500mm might be a bit short for you.

You will be able to hand hold the 600mm with effort, but you will want a monopod to carry with you to use when you can.
If you are going to only hand hold I would think long and hard about the lighter 500mm.

If you are doing general wildlife, and birds occasionally the 500mm would be much more appealing with the 7D.

Either way you are not making a wrong choice, both lenses will be great.

[Steve U]

You would better off with the be version 2 for sure just buy it. The images will be incredible. I can't wait to see them. Very few can afford it. It will become your lens of choice. Definitely get it. There is no better.

[FastGass]

BIF with a 600mm II? Thats going to be a handfull. The 500mm II is going to be much easier to use for this situation.

For general bird photography and wildlife the 600mm II or even the 800mm would be better choices, you do not want to get very close to wildlife for obvious reasons! Do you want to upgrade to FF or stick with you 7D? These lenses are not all that different in price so I would get the longer lenses so I could get a 5D III or 1DX and still have a decent upgrade in focal length to what you have now.

Just for the record, I use the Minolta MD (manual focus) 600mm f/6.3 on a 60D and I do not feel it is to much focal length, many many times I wish I had more! I could get away with a shorter lens at times but I have to put more effort into it and sometimes there is no way around needing a longer lens. Also the longer lenses are going to have cleaner backgrounds than the 500mm, also take that into acount.

Just my two cents,
John.

[eldarhau]

I had to go through the same dilemma when my old 500mm f4.0 needed to retire. But I also added the 400mm f2.8L II to the equation and actually ended up with that. The reason for my choice was that the f2.8 is very valuable for low light wildlife and sports and the quality you get with the 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders is also exceptional, so I could get an 800mm f5.6. I primarily use (a brand new) 1DX and a 5D MkIII, but I also have a 7D, when I can benefit from the 1.6x crop factor. That gives you an effective 1280mm, which is pretty good.
What I did not know when I bought it was that Canon actually fixed the autofocus issue above f5.6. Since you now can use the 2x III with the 600mm f4.0, I would be very tempted to go for that. But (at the moment) that requires a 1DX and it would mean goodbye to the f2.8. But all three lenses are simply magnificent.
Good luck!

[neuroanatomist]

BIF with a 600mm II? Thats going to be a handfull. The 500mm II is going to be much easier to use for this situation.

For general bird photography and wildlife the 600mm II or even the 800mm would be better choices...

I'd say it's a judgement call depending on arm strength. The 500 MkI was considered a handholdable birding lens suitable for BIF. The 600 II weighs essentially the same as the 500 I. But, the 500 II is almost 2 lbs lighter.

Speaking personally, I can hike with the 600 II, handhold it, and shoot BIF with it. I do hang a monopod from my belt, in case I'll be standing somewhere for a long time, but usually I move and shoot, move and shoot, and the monopod stays on my belt. I'm not a 'jock', I don't lift weights per se, but the weight of the lens is supported by the left arm, and my left arm has spent the last few years carrying one of my daughters (now 24 and 33 lbs.) for fairly long stretches of time.

If you can go somewhere and set up on a tripod with a gimbal, the weight of the lens is less of a concern. Still, I'd pick the 600/4 II over the 800/5.6. Check out Bryan's ISO 12233 charts. The bare 600 II is noticeably sharper than the bare 800. The 600 II + 1.4x III gives 840mm f/5.6 that's still slightly sharper than the 800, and is 40mm longer and a bit lighter to carry. The 600 II + 2x III is slightly sharper than the 800 + 1.4x III, and both combos will AF on a 1DIV or 1D X with the new firmware. So...I'm not sure I see the point of the 800/5.6 , now.

I had planned on a 500mm lens, but I'm loving my 600 II...

[Vern]

I rented both the 600 and 500 II's and recently purchased the 600 II. If the AF at f8 option was known in August, I might have gone with the 500. I used it w the 2X II tele and found the results quite sharp and contrasty - but I had to focus using live view, which is not really practical. IMO it is a much easier lens to handle and its performance w both teles is great. While I am loving the 600, it doesn't look so great w the 2X on this site (ISO chart). I can hand-hold the 600, but prefer to attach a monopod w the wimberley sidekick - even heavier, but I can use the monopod to brace against my leg w/o extending when I want to be maximumly mobile and track BIF w/o straining my lower back. The sidekick then enables great tracking w the monopod extended. I'll test out the 600 w the 2X once the 5dMKIII firmware permits AF at f8. Good luck w the options - lots of interesting trade-offs. A rental might be worth it if you are really stuck on deciding - I used the source on this site.

[Vern]

here's a shot w the 600 + 1.4X combo at f5.6 - looks sharp to me

[neuroanatomist]

The 600 II + 2xIII combo is also very good (and based on Bryan's ISO 12233 crops, better than the 800/5.6 + 1.4xIII).

On my phone now, I'll try to post an example of the 600 II + 2xIII later tonight.

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, here's a shot with the combo:

EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 2x III Extender, 1/320 s, f/8, ISO 4000

Here's a 100% crop of the above: